- 3 -
On February 2, 1998, respondent filed a second request for
admissions with the Court, a copy of which respondent had served
on petitioners on January 26, 1998. On March 5, 1998,
petitioners filed a response to respondent’s second request for
admissions, a copy of which petitioners had served on respondent
on February 26 and 27, 1998. That response stated, inter alia:
I/we do not deny, nor have I/we ever denied Articles
[paragraphs] 1 through 5 [of respondent’s second
request for admissions]. Taxes were withheld and paid
for the named years. What we are declaring is we
received an exchange/compensation for labor and the use
of our truck, for services rendered to the below named
Companies * * *.
In petitioners’ response to respondent’s second request for
admissions, petitioners acknowledged having received during 1992
and 1993 “compensation for labor” in the amounts and from the
companies listed in that request. However, in that response,
petitioners did not admit that such compensation was “nonemployee
compensation" as described in respondent’s second request for
admissions, and they denied that they owed self-employment tax.
In an Order dated May 4, 1998, the Court, inter alia, found
petitioners’ response to respondent’s request for admissions to
be evasive and totally inadequate, and, consequently, the Court
treated that response as a failure to answer or respond to
respondent’s request for admissions pursuant to Rule 104(d).
However, the Court allowed petitioners an opportunity to
supplement on or before May 26, 1998, their response to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011